That has helped create the circumstances that are driving some of the broader reconsiderations of the business. Leslie Moonves, the CBS chairman who made the switch to Mr. McManus, had stirred the pot most aggressively by stating last January that he was looking for something radical and even revolutionary to replace Mr. Rather - a move away from what he called the "voice of God" anchor. At one point Mr. Moonves was quoted suggesting that he would like to blow up CBS News entirely.

Yesterday, Mr. Moonves said that comment was never serious and he had made it "out of frustration." That he wants changes at CBS News is still true; but with Mr. McManus, the longtime head of the CBS sports division, he has installed a solid, highly respected mainstream broadcast executive, not a revolutionary.

Its been my observation that those networks that use unknown news readers for most of the news do a much better job than those that stick to the old dogs.

Could be. Consider the talent coming out of the likes of the Columbia School of Journalism. Airheads would probably be a compliment. Likely steeped in Marxist idealogy moreso than their predecessors.

First, they have to at least attempt to be believable rather than simply making pronouncemts from on high.

I would take some issue with that. The "room" they are playing to doesn't care. Put them in the same class as the O.J. jury. All they want is something to hang their hat on. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, IMO.

FGS

6
posted on 10/27/2005 12:12:13 AM PDT
by ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)

Maybe McManus will put a stat tracker on the screen for all us fantasy news junkies.

Heh. It might be interesting to follow the meanderings of cbs news over the next few months. My bet is that little will change in the "newsroom". Lipstick on a pig comes to mind. Even if McManus were to be interested in changing the direction of their presentation, I don't see it happening any time soon; likely never. The Bolsheviks are entrenched within the system. To make any meaningful changes would require a housecleaning IMO.

Sortof a side note: Would you be more interested in capturing an audience with sizable disposable income that spends wisely, or an audience with less disposable income that spends foolishly(that is, a fool and his money, so to speak).

FGS

13
posted on 10/27/2005 12:35:27 AM PDT
by ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)

Sean McManus is the president of CBS Sports, but he is also the son of Baltimores own Jim McKay.

Jim McManus (McKay's real name) gave up his job as a reporter for the Baltimore Sun newspapers to join that organization's new TV station, WMAR-TV, in 1947. His was the first voice ever heard on television in Baltimore. He functioned as writer, producer, director, newsman, sports commentator and on-camera personality for WMAR-TV until he came to CBS in New York in 1950, as host of a variety show.

Through the 1950s, sports commentary more and more became his primary assignment for CBS. He was the anchorman for the Masters and PGA Golf Championships, and also covered college football, horse racing and other sports.

McKay lives with his wife, Margaret, in Monkton, Maryland. Mrs. McManus is a member of the Board of Trustees of the College of Notre Dame of Maryland (her alma mater), and founder of a day care center on the campus, known as A Child's Place. They have a son, Sean McManus, president of CBS Sports; a daughter, Mrs. Alex Guba, a national board-certified counselor; a 23 -year-old grandson, James Fontelieu; Mary's son born in 1982; also a five-year-old granddaughter, Maggie McManus, named for her grandmother and Jackson McManus, born in 2001. When time permits, McKay enjoys playing golf.

McKay is also the author of two books, "My Wide World," published by MacMillan in 1973, and "The Real McKay," by Dutton in 1998.

Sean McManus is a man who worked his way up the ladder from a production assistant at ABC Sports to becoming a producer at NBC and finally an executive landing as the president of CBS Sports.

"At one point Mr. Moonves was quoted suggesting that he would like to blow up CBS News entirely."

That thought has occurred to many of us over the years.

The condescending paternalistic liberal patriarchy of cBS has generally been rather insufferable over the years. Dan Rather's just-arrived-from-Mt.-Olympus righteousness was almost campy in its silliness. Only a superhero leotard, cape, and mask could have made it sillier. Perhaps finally "our national nightmare is now over."

McManus is McKay's real surname. No idea whether this is his son though.

"Interesting side note. What, if anything, do you know about his/their politics?"

More of that great, wry Texan humor? {g}

OK, let's consider the question with the utmost seriousness requiring we reverse engineer the facts.

"...a move away from what he called the "voice of God" anchor."

What's rattling around inside the empty cranium of someone who'd *perceive* Blather in this way? What're his politics because after all it'll be this guy who chooses, eh?

"At one point Mr. Moonves was quoted suggesting that he would like to blow up CBS News entirely."

Yessssss!

"Yesterday, Mr. Moonves said that comment was never serious and he had made it 'out of frustration.'"

Nooooooo!

"That he wants changes at CBS News is still true; but with Mr. McManus, the longtime head of the CBS sports division, he has installed a solid, highly respected mainstream broadcast executive, not a revolutionary."

HA!! Meet the "new" Boss.

...same as the old Boss. ;^)

20
posted on 10/27/2005 7:35:26 AM PDT
by Landru
(If a sucker's born every minute, that's 36,288,800 suckers born every *year*.)

Would youse guys mind taking a shot at this question I sort of threw out above:

Sortof a side note: Would you be more interested in capturing an audience with sizable disposable income that spends wisely, or an audience with less[meager, even] disposable income that spends foolishly(that is, a fool and his money, so to speak).

Hmm?

FGS

21
posted on 10/27/2005 7:13:34 PM PDT
by ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)

If by that you mean, does commercial broadcast have more tendency to influence the great unwashed than the elite, you would have to supposte the former.

But I caution that it is not only the bottom of the economic ladder but also much of the top which goes for Democratic politics - the former is willing to be patronized as "poor," and the latter is willing to patronize "the poor." The Republican Party exists largely to protect the middle class from both the envious "poor" and the patronizing rich.

23
posted on 10/27/2005 7:59:09 PM PDT
by conservatism_IS_compassion
(The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)

If by that you mean, does commercial broadcast have more tendency to influence the great unwashed than the elite, you would have to supposte the former.

The "elite" may be stretching it a bit, but the rest of your response seems to clarify re the middle class. I suppose my point would be, it looks like the middle class has become all but persona non grata to the MSM, teevee programmers, et al. It also appears, to their dismay, the print media's chickens are coming home to roost. Will the purveyors of teevee programming be next since they don't seem to be doing all that well these days either. If they in fact have forsaken the middle class for nearsighted goals, have they not become the instruments of their own demise? They should maybe get a new prescription for their spectacles???

FGS

24
posted on 10/27/2005 10:29:26 PM PDT
by ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)

Will the purveyors of teevee programming be next since they don't seem to be doing all that well these days either. If they in fact have forsaken the middle class for nearsighted goals, have they not become the instruments of their own demise?

Television became the most powerful medium by virtue of its ability to reach a broad, near universal audience and motivate/inform them via the two primary senses -- sight and sound.

But television suffers from two unavoidable handicaps. Production is inherently expensive, by a considerable magnitude, compared to other media. Second, there is no such thing as spontaneity in television. Outside of sports and breaking news, you will never see an unprogrammed, unrehearsed event.

Once you have constrained TV programmers and writers with a budget and the inability to employ spontaneity, there is a finite limit to what amount of creativity is possible. With the arrival of so-called "reality" shows, it would appear we have reached that point...

But television suffers from two unavoidable handicaps. Production is inherently expensive, by a considerable magnitude, compared to other media.

True enough, but it takes a lot o' dough to keep any major enterprise going. And, given their almost unique "product", why would they have trouble generating enough revenue to create programming that "sells"? This powerful medium should be able to create a little something for everyone, but it seems they've chosen(?) to get down and dirty, thereby alienating much of their potential audience. A mystery?

Second, there is no such thing as spontaneity in television.

Maybe it's too dangerous. Still in all, it makes one wonder why?

FGS

26
posted on 10/27/2005 11:42:04 PM PDT
by ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)

Either is a valid marketing approach. It just depends on what your product is. For ex., it would be foolish to try to sell Ferraris in the inner city. A coke dealer or two might buy one, but (crime aside) you wouldn't make it. On the other hand, it probably wouldn't be good to put a "Dollar Store" on Rodeo Drive, although, oddly, we have a "Goodwill" store in Centerville, OH, one of the richer suburbs of Dayton, and my wife knows MANY fairly well-to-do people who shop there. I'm sure Clark Howard would!

it looks like the middle class has become all but persona non grata to the MSM

Well, as I have often said, the rules by which the MSM mass-produce copy that will attract interest - "if it bleeds it leads for example - are not politically neutral. Those rules - which people who sign up to be reporters aspire to follow - patronize the middle class by contemptuously dismissing the middle class's need to focus on the bottom line (which tethers the middle class to the reality that small economies - "being cheap" - can be essential to stay in the middle class and avoid poverty).

Think of My Fair Lady, Professor Higgins and the father of Eliza Dolittle. Henry Higgins is too rich to fear being poor or even middle class, and Mr. Dolittle is too poor to have any hope of being middle class. This leads Dolittle to be philosophically compatible with - fascinating to - Higgins. But when Higgins endows Dolittle with enough income to have hope of staying out of the poorhouse - i.e., puts Dolittle in the middle class - Dolittle finds himself changed, no longer the person he was before. The money "ruins" him.

The MSM has an elite, Henry Higgins perspective which is contemptuous of middle class virtues. And promotes cultural influences which tend to keep the poor poor and to pull children of the middle class toward poverty.

And there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic Party and the MSM, because the Democratic Party has no principles which would seperate it from the MSM. The Democratic Party just goes with the flow of the MSM, and the MSM simply takes the Democratic Party for granted and sees the middle class party - the Republican Party - as terra incognito, a strange unfathomable beast.

28
posted on 10/28/2005 5:23:16 AM PDT
by conservatism_IS_compassion
(The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)

"Would you be more interested in capturing an audience with sizable disposable income that spends wisely, or an audience with less[meager, even] disposable income that spends foolishly(that is, a fool and his money, so to speak)...Uh, caveat re question above; we're talking soap and like products for your target audience, right? Not yachts and summer homes."

Soap, not yachts. Fine. Got it.

Listen my friend, today's media does what yesterday's media did.

Whatever "Mr. Jensen" wants. Capiche?

Honest, it's really no more complicated than that.

...think about it. ;^)

29
posted on 10/28/2005 7:22:19 AM PDT
by Landru
(If a sucker's born every minute, ~36,288,800 suckers are born every *year*.)

...oddly, we have a "Goodwill" store in Centerville, OH, one of the richer suburbs of Dayton, and my wife knows MANY fairly well-to-do people who shop there.

I've known a few myself but I suspect Goodwill would locate a store in the area as much for a dropoff point as anything else, no? I dunno.

You missed my caveat in my post following re who prgramming, hence, advertising might be directed towards. Can you see how conservatives(middle class(?)) and flyover country may have been relegated to second class status by the media? I mean, WHO actually watches this stuff?

FGS

31
posted on 10/28/2005 2:46:46 PM PDT
by ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)

Great analogy and your take on the MSM/Dim partnership is right on IMO. I'll ask another question if you don't mind ;^): Will conservatives ever have preeminence in media the left has now? Are conservatives even interested in assuming that role? Since there appears to be a vacuum forming in the MSM, something is going to change, but what that change might be I haven't a clue.

FGS

32
posted on 10/28/2005 2:52:46 PM PDT
by ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)

Only better.....or worse; depending on one's point of view? Anyway, point taken. For some reason it brings to mind an old Dan Seals(?) song; "Everything That Glitters is Not Gold". The patina that was the MSM is fading to black; or at least to dark grey. Everywhere we look nowadays there's bad news for the MSM. A shift is in the works? Humor me, awright ;^)

FGS

33
posted on 10/28/2005 3:01:40 PM PDT
by ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)

I don't know, but I will tell you this: despite demographic information that G rated movies ROUTINELY and OVERWHELMINGLY out-perform PG or R rated movies at the box office, Hollywood deliberately includes "hard" material so as to avoid the social stigma of doing "unsophisticated" movies. Likewise, who has more disposable income, a 19 year old or a 45 year old woman? But where is 80% of the marketing aimed? The 19 year old. Now, part of that, I know, is that the sellers are hoping to "lock in" life-long purchasing habits and brand loyalty. But still, it's the same as your question: why do they market to people who don't have as much financial clout? Because it's hipper, allows them to do more cutesy things in their ads, and gives them cocktail party conversation.

Will conservatives ever have preeminence in media the left has now? Are conservatives even interested in assuming that role?

I doubt it. I think that MSM journalism is, was, and will be calibrated to prevent that. "Talk radio" is actually journalism which doesn't make the arrogant claim to objectivity. But "objective" journalism presumably will always make itself sufficiently believable to enough people to prevent conservatives from taking over the MSM.

Because it's hipper, allows them to do more cutesy things in their ads, and gives them cocktail party conversation.

It is curious isn't it? They must have some interesting business models (Such as they are).

Or maybe what many/some of us suspect is true, that is, they have ulterior motives, and uninhibited by any moral values, they charge ahead flinging $HIT everywhere, KNOWING at least some of it will stick. Ahem.

FGS

37
posted on 10/28/2005 6:21:58 PM PDT
by ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)

But "objective" journalism presumably will always make itself sufficiently believable to enough people...

It's my contention that people who tend to watch their pap every night could care less; it supports their skewed vision of the world. You know, the O.J. jury types. Does the truth mean anything to them? Who do they vote for? Never mind ;^)

FGS

38
posted on 10/28/2005 6:30:03 PM PDT
by ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)

Actually, it's more a case of not wanting to have the camera on guy who's picking his nose while somebody else is making the point. And the host screaming for everybody to shut up, since "We just missed a break!"

It's a fantasy world they've created where everything's choreographed, things rarely go wrong(on camera at least), and the players mostly look like All Americans. Maybe they feel they could run the country the same way. Or more likely, would like us to believe they could. Maybe they have attempted to sell the unwashed on the notion of their infallability? I recall similar thoughts of a cbs "Camelot" expressed by Dan Rather(remember him?). IOW, I suspect most of these media types, at least the high rollers, live only in their media world. The rest of us are unenlightened heathens who need their guidance.

Even "suits" have to pick their noses now and then ;^)

FGS

42
posted on 10/28/2005 11:05:18 PM PDT
by ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)

There has been a debate going on among conservative students of the media (people such as Michael Medved, Marvin Olasky, Peter Brown of the Orlando Sentinel) as to what mainly drives newspapers and movies. One side says, "only money." The other side says "only ideology." A few say "culture." I think it's a mixture.

The Hollywood types have to show enough profit, obviously, that they can brag about it and pay for their Porsches. On the other hand, most would gladly sacrifice another $10 mil. at the box office for "critical accalaim." After all, it's not "their money," it's the money of the producers, and producers rarely get involved in the marketing (for a good book on this, see "Final Cut," about the "Heaven's Gate" fiasco). On the other hand, if someone says, "Our pic won an Academy Award nomination, the producer immediately forgets about the potential $$ he might have made and is the toast of the town for having "courage."

I think on a rational basis, most of these people don't even THINK in terms of "what will red-state American say?" They assume that if their Hollywood buddies like it, we can be made to like it. Same with newspapers. I live in Dayton, OH, which has one of the most blatantly left-wing papers in the world. (When Dick Cheney came here in 2004, the headline was "Cheney Ties Up Traffic!" and when Kerry came here the headline was "Kerry Draws Big Crowd!") We get requests from the publisher/editor at DDN all the time for "input" and suggestions, but when I suggest to them that their papers is biased, they go "hmmm, really?" then do nothing.

So bottom line, I think both the news media and Hollywood, so long as they can show ANY profit to justify that they are "doing a good job" for the stockholders, will consistently be more affected by their culture and beliefs than by their wallets.

Welllll never *ever* forget the medium's use, today. As a primary vehicle to/for influencing the Republic's population. When seeking answer(s) to questions concerning the MSM one starts by defining the miscreants in charge, right? Hence we're seeing exactly what "Mr. Jensen" wants us to see and in that sense the MSM hasn't changed. But the similarity stops *there*.

When this all began, those in charge were of the WWII generation, and look at the type of programming we watched in our youth: "Leave It To Beaver", "Ozzie and Harriet", "*Combat*"??

With the late 60s-70s the brainstems began delivering a message quite different into the living rooms of America & as they did they (deliberately) "pushed the envelope". They were just beginning to understand the immense power wielded by the image makers of Hollyweird & the "News" divisions at the alphabets. ~eh?

The more they pushed the repercussions became less & less, with far & few exceptions. Feedback American youth were actually emulating their lunacy as some sort of "reality" or "trend" must've been something else for the soon to be out-of-control egos. The end game was rapidly becoming one of pissing-off "Mom & Pop America" & that meant no holds would be barred, A 1st Amendment would protect their tack the entire way, too. And so it was.

"Anyway, point taken."

Still think so? {g}

"For some reason it brings to mind an old Dan Seals(?) song; 'Everything That Glitters is Not Gold'."

Yea but what's happened is nothing's "gold" anymore with no chance of "gold" being discovered. The proof's everywhere & the gage isn't just entertainment, either. The lack of "value" is found in every aspect of our culture be it politics, academia, anything. Things for the image makers has never been so easy. We've a public today that'll eat any shit put in front of 'em automatically and without question. How couldn't they? The condition's been pretty thorough.

"The patina that was the MSM is fading to black; or at least to dark grey. Everywhere we look nowadays there's bad news for the MSM."

MSM isn't the giant it was while we grew up, that's a given. Rush has addressed the topic of how it's not that big a deal [anymore] to appear on TV, nowhere near the novelty of our day even if *they* don't realize it.

In any event let's have a close(r) look at the brainstems/writers we *do* see today in the MSM, shall we? Hollyweird employs the lowest possible denominator just as the NitWitNets do their newsreaders. I'll paint with the broadest of brushes because really, I can't possibly go wrong, OK?

Looking at each of today's *personalities and/or "actors" then? What's the ethnicity? How about sexuality? Race? Religion. Get the picture, answer those questions for each individual and a "mosaic" forms. Compare the action(s) & the mosaic becomes a *picture* & quite complete.

What the nation gets -- in the way of entertainment via television, motion pictures and/or "news" today -- is merely a reflection of the producers/writer'sethnicity, sexuality, race, and religion (if there is one) all wrapped-up in what they *produce*, what we see. Sounds obvious, huh. It is.Painfully obvious if you one finds themselves critical of the *product* they're being exposed to? And if you think about it they've done the same thing with the MSM as happened with newspapers. Our choice has been totally eliminated. :o)

"News" aside most of us once enjoyed motion pictures & television programming of the past. But have you noticed the "quality" of yesterday is completely gone? Just consider *who* it is producing. Think about the *baggage* hardwired into these imbeciles, how [it] manifests in the *product*. The reason(s) why "quality", "good taste", "genius" etc are no more can easily be understood after it's accepted the sources, standards & expectations are absent, today.

When was the last time you sat down to be entertained & noticed the theme of the story you watched was a [rather poor] mimic of an old story you'd seen long ago? I have & the clown Chris Carter of "The X Files" fame leaps to mind, immediately. I can honestly say todays writers don't have an original thought in their empty heads so what're they to do but *copy*, emulate something they'd once seen in their youth, growing up? Only *their* inspiration wasn't from some novel, historical event, it was from the very medium they find themselves engaged in, now. "New" to them maybe, but certainly old to us.

It takes some semblance of intelligence and creativity to *produce* fresh, new & entertaining story-lines in any medium. Unfortunately such qualities are totally absent and as it turns out completely unnecessary for delivering the message(s) the medium's calling for, today.

And really what's become the norm for "news" today is every bit as phony, poorly produced as any modern day motion picture/television story you'll ever see, isn't it? Bottom line is can't make a silk purse from a sows ear. Can ya?

"A shift is in the works?"

Yea. A down-shift.

"Humor me, awright"

HA!! You got my best shot, friend.

...ya laughin'? ;^)

44
posted on 10/29/2005 8:52:03 AM PDT
by Landru
(If a sucker's born every minute, that's ~36,288,800 new suckers born every year.)

I think on a rational basis, most of these people don't even THINK in terms of "what will red-state American say?" They assume that if their Hollywood buddies like it, we can be made to like it. Same with newspapers.

And it has worked for several decades? Correct me if I'm wrong but seems like I've read/heard that ALL media(save radio?) are experiencing difficulties retaining an audience. That is, their market penetration has been more or less steadily declining for, say, the last ten years or so? Rumblings are already coming from the innards of "newspapers" and the networks. I haven't heard much(with the exception of Disney) from Hollywood except to say that I believe movie attendance is down dramatically from a decade ago. And STILL they continue to fling their poo at flyover country.

So bottom line, I think both the news media and Hollywood, so long as they can show ANY profit to justify that they are "doing a good job" for the stockholders, will consistently be more affected by their culture and beliefs than by their wallets.

So, WHAT have they done? Shoot for the quickest, cheapest, easiest buck by catering to the dimmest bulbs amongst us? Filth sells......to some. And it's cheap to produce? Bottom line survives. The dimwits that continue to patronize this rubbish are what keeps Hollywood in business and the sewage flowing. Can Hollywood et al survive long term with this business plan? Will the fluff become self perpetuating; that is, will the MSM be able to skew cultural values downward simply by maintaining their position? God I hope not! And I wouldn't place a bet one way or the other....given what I know of human nature.

FGS

45
posted on 10/29/2005 8:28:13 PM PDT
by ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)

Ever consider painting? You've created a colorful, and I suspect accurate mural of the landscape we have to deal with. It ain't pretty is it?

And really what's become the norm for "news" today is every bit as phony, poorly produced as any modern day motion picture/television story you'll ever see, isn't it?

It would seem. The more I hear first hand accounts of what really happened vs what makes the "news" is vastly different in many cases; it somehow morphed. And this on stories that are nothing more than puff pieces. Made from whole cloth in some shining examples most of us are aware of. The "good" ones make it up as they go along apparently. And that's the way it is.

...ya laughin'?

Beats cryin' ;^)

FGS

46
posted on 10/29/2005 9:11:01 PM PDT
by ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)

1) George Gilder predicted in "Life After Television" that cable/satellite would result in better programming, with great shows directed at 1% of the audience---but a hundred of them. To an extent, he is right. My wife and I watch "Food Network," "Tradeing Spaces," as well as some things that some conservatives might find offensive, but I find remarkably well-written and thought provoking, like "The Shield" and "Nip/Tuck." I don't think anyone would argue that these, and many History Channel shows, aren't of high quality, well-written, etc.

2) Movies are different: for the last five years, there has been a growing concern about the lack of plots, and rehashing used TV shows or even computer games ("Doom," "Resident Evil," "Mortal Kombat.") Now, for 90% of the movies that's true, and I think one of the big problems is that Hollywood has completely EXCLUDED ITSELF from ANY "conservative" themes. So it is always stuck preaching to only half the choir. I have a novel/screenplay for a 9/11 movie that is very "conservative" in its themes, etc., and which (so far) NO editor has said was not well written---yet no one will touch it because of the slant/subject matter (i.e., Americans are heroes, the jihadists are evil).

There are a FEW brilliant movies out there. For ex, I just watched "11:14" which takes a body falling on a car at 11:14 and then goes backwards to tie in the lives of four or five individuals as they came to that point. There have been some others like that---Johnny Depp was in one whose title escapes me. What is generally lacking, though, is the ability to tie these sophisticated screenplays/concepts to CONSERVATIVE themes.

The problem with the "follow the money" thesis is that Hollywood for YEARS has had overhwleming evidence that a "G" rated movie on average makes a lot more money than a PG or R. Yet Hollywood does not want to make "G" rated movies. This is the point of Medved's book, "Hollywood vs. America." It't not just about money. It's about being perceived as "hip," liberal, and "with it."

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.